Talk:Hip-hop in academia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheJymy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback
Jules, Great start. Your classmates are on point re: small typos, putting bits in sections that are now in the intro part, and citations. Don't forget performance studies as a "discipline" that contributes to HHS. keep up the good work! --JustJess PhD (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I really like this topic and i am (somewhat) surprised a page didn't already exist. I noticed you have the same citation listed as multiple citations. If you name the first citation when you make it by filling in the "ref name" line then you can click on the "named references" for subsequent references and it will fill it in automatically without duplicating.I imagine you plan on doing this because a lot of what is in your article could fit in your subsections but I think your first paragraph works well as the "lead" and everything else can go in other categories. I do not know what information is "out there" but going through these topics I think one helpful way to get ideas for your page is to look at similiar pages. For example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_studies might give you some ideas (maybe you could do subsections that summerize the big theorist works). This might also be a way to address feminism in hip hop studies (assuming some of these scholars do). The quality/tone of your writing is awesome, it reads like a wiki article. Great job! Aeafournier (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm amazed that this didn't have a page already and you're doing a great job with it. You have a very non-biased, encyclopedia-y way of writing, which is exactly what is needed. I have the same comment on the citations, but I also have that issue and need to figure out how to re-format it (thanks to Aefournier for the instructions!). Also, in regard to your references, just remember to make a reference section (same as how you've done the other headings) and place the code Reflist (with –  surrounding the word) underneath it, just so that the references you make don't just float after a section meant for a specific sub-topic. I think the addition subsections that you have listed are appropriate and will be super informative once they're completed. Really good job so far! Tyeargin92 (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting topic and well written. It comes across as very legit, like something that's already been here and worked on by many wikipedia users. Couple of suggestions: I think your last paragraph could go under the critiques section and though I know this is only the first draft of many I'd keep an eye out for typos, I noticed a few spelling things while reading through it. The fact that there isn't much to point out aside from a word or so spelled incorrectly just shows how great this is so far! Looking forward to seeing the final product. Kayla523 (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Really interesting topic. I agree with most of the comments above in regards to your summary being well written. I'm also surprised that this was not a page already.really don't have any critiques. Awesome start. Tasha2015 (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)